The source of most of this information is from an article written by: Brucha Weisberger
The ones who are planning to soon control humanity have made their goals and methods clear for whoever cares enough to look, such as the researcher (Ice Age Farmer on Youtube) who prepared this video – this is a MUST see and should be SHARED!
Here are the plotters’ websites, so you can see their “zero carbon” plans for yourself. Of course, everything is under the guise of pretending to be super-righteous people whose only care is to help every single person on the planet have a wonderful life.
In case you might think that these people really do have our best interests in mind, watch this 13 minute video to understand what an evil murderer the head of the UN World Health Organization (Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus) actually is:
It’s critical to learn their language, to understand what they really mean. Here is some basic vocabulary:
“Reduce carbon emissions” for a “sustainable future” means: Reduce the amount of people on the planet and severely curtail the freedom of those who remain to live normal lives.
“Helping the planet”, “global warming”, and “carbon zero” are all complete shams which simply provide an excellent cover for the eugenicist and control agenda.
“Choices” don’t really mean choices. They might briefly start off as voluntary actions, but quickly become forced.
“Individual carbon trackers” to “help people make good choices for the environment” means people’s carbon footprint constantly being tracked with every purchase or other choice they make, and when they exceed a their small limited allowance, they are blocked from purchasing any more gasoline or heating fuel or meat or whatever is deemed environmentally unfriendly.
Of course, the “elites” won’t be personally restricted. To them, it’s all a joke. They jet around the globe at will, with not a care in the world for their “carbon footprint.” They know the truth – that human activity has no effect on the weather.
These evil ones – the members of the World Economic Forum in Davos, of the United Nations, WHO and UNESCO, their mega-rich friends, and the leaders of many governments – whom the WEF has trained in their Young Global Leaders program and installed in countries worldwide – hold deeply eugenicist beliefs. That means that they don’t think all kinds of people deserve to live and reproduce, and they believe there should be many fewer people in the world. Like, really a lot fewer.
They don’t believe in the sanctity of life, or human free will.
These wicked people also don’t believe in G-d, or perhaps some of them do, but they just think they can overcome Him, (G-d forbid to even say such words.) In their arrogance and lust for power, they plan to “replace G-d” – to fully control us. Actually, more. Because G-d gives us free will, and these elites plan to remove our free will.
Here are more details of their plans:
The WEF article above was published September 14 on their website, and gives quite a good picture of what they have in mind. Here is an excerpt from the Expose on October 13 which explains what the WEF is saying:
In his 2020 book “THE DENIAL” journalist Ross Clark describes a dystopian future in which everything we buy or do has a carbon (CO2) value and each household or individual has a carbon allowance which is the maximum amount of CO2 they are allowed to use each month.
No household or individual is allowed to exceed their CO2 allowance unless they are part of the elites who, of course, have no restrictions on their CO2 use.
‘THE DENIAL’ was fiction until 14 September 2022 – that’s just a few weeks ago.
On 14 September 2022, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum published an article titled: My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities
By David Craig; author of ‘THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS‘
The World Economic Forum’s article can be split into three main parts:
Part 1 ~ The Globalist Elites are Amazed at How Easily We Submitted
In the first part, the writers express what could almost be described as amazement at how willingly we submitted to their Project Fear Covid restrictions on our freedom.
Here’s the key paragraph:
A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health.
The article claims that our acceptance of Covid restrictions: ‘demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility’.
Part 2 ~ The Fourth Industrial Revolution
In this part the authors discuss how advances in technology allow our individual carbon emissions to be quantified and tracked
Here’s a section:
Fourth Industrial Revolution technology breakthroughs – Advances in emerging technologies like AI, blockchain and digitization can enable tracking personal carbon emissions.
The article gives an example of a smartphone app which can be used to measure an individual’s carbon emissions:
There is a significant number of programs and applications enabling citizens to contribute towards carbon emissions by providing them in-depth awareness on the choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices.
In this part, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum article proposes a model showing how our rulers plan to control our individual carbon usage:
Part 3 ~ How Our Carbon Allowances Will Be Controlled
This falls into 3 main approaches:
•Economic Behaviour – our rulers will keep increasing the price of carbon so that ordinary people eat less, heat our homes less, buy fewer products and restrict our travel.
•Cognitive Awareness – we will have to monitor our personal ‘carbon footprints’ so that we can reduce our carbon usage as part of the transition to a net-zero-carbon society. As the article explains, reducing our individual carbon footprints will cover most areas of our lives: ‘choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices’
•Social Norms – we will all be given fixed allowances of what are called a ‘fair share’ and ‘acceptable levels’ of personal emissions. These ‘fair shares’ and ‘acceptable levels’ will be set by the ruling elites
- (BW: If you’re a religious person who believes in a big family, you can be sure they’ll do everything in their power to keep you from fulfilling your dreams, which are the antithesis of their plans. Remember China’s one-child law and the forced pregnancy checks, forced abortions and sterilizations they used to enforce it.)
In case you don’t believe they really mean it, check that link I gave above to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum article, and see their other gems, like this:
The Carbon Trading Billionaires
There is one part of our wonderful carbon-controlled future the World Economic Forum article doesn’t mention. I suspect that this carbon allowances scheme will also include a ‘carbon trading’ facility. This will allow ordinary people to sell parts of their carbon allowances to carbon-trading companies who will then sell them on to the privileged political, business and media elites. This will ensure that the elites can continue to live a life of unrestricted luxury with unlimited travel, the most expensive foods and other life pleasures while the rest of us huddle in our tiny barely-heated homes eating locally-grown potatoes, cabbage, insects or lab-produced fake meat.
How Serious are They About Controlling What We eat?
Very serious! This is a core aspect of the agenda. See these excerpts from the excellent September 22 article by Andrew Cuff on The American Mind (link below.)
The Plot to Eliminate Animal Protein is Well Ahead of Your Plans to Keep Eating It
Farmers across the world are in open revolt against their governments. In India, thousands of farmers have stormed New Delhi, alleging collusion between the Prime Minister and major agricultural corporations. In the Netherlands, new restrictions on nitrogen emissions from fertilizer that threaten to destroy farmers’ livelihoods have driven battalions of tractors into the streets—and conflicts with the police. In Sri Lanka, the President’s sudden decision to ban chemical fertilizers and impose universal organic farming recently led to massive protests and the collapse of their government. Similar environmentalist policies are about to be imposed in Ireland and Canada, where just last year truckers shut down the city of Ottawa over COVID vaccination mandates.
Writing for National Review, Andrew Stuttaford predicts an impending farmer’s uprising in Canada in response to what he calls Canada’s “war on beef.” The phrase echoes a common belief on the American right that leftists seek to hyper-regulate or outright ban animal protein in the same way they do guns or fossil fuels. The Foundation for Economic Education began talking about a “war on meat” as early as 2019. Senator Joni Ernst referenced “the left’s war on meat” to advocate her TASTEE Act last year. John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist recently warned that “America is Next” for a farmer uprising, due to the climate policies that Democrats are imposing here. Ultimately, many Americans have come to agree that this war on meat is a conspiracy of globalist elites, attributing even everyday agricultural misfortunes such as fertilizer scarcity, diesel fuel price hikes, widespread food processing and crop fires, and supply chain disruptions to a purposeful agenda.
The concern is warranted. Upending the meat industry for environmental or health reasons should not be a serious policy debate. Ranchers and farmers are the only source of the nutritious, whole protein that nearly every culture includes in its cuisine. For all but the most religious vegan or “food activism” theorist, there is little doubt that including animal protein in your diet keeps you leaner and stronger, alive longer, and free of chronic illness.
Eat the Bugs
I presented the question of a “war on meat” to John Cain Carter, a cattle rancher whose operations in Texas and Brazil led him to establish the well-known rain forest conservation organization Aliança da Terra. Through his advocacy, he is deeply familiar with the world of pro-environment NGOs, but despite working in the same field, he does not view them positively. Groups like the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, The Rockefeller Foundation and others are engaged, says Carter, in a “siege on the beef business” and “an attack exquisitely planned as far back as the 1950s.”
“These groups want to wipe out independent family ranches in advance of corporate takeover,” Carter said, “And they push for policies that increase input costs and keep commodity prices stagnant while inflation rises.” And governments, he continued, are more than happy to oblige “under the auspices of climate change, animal welfare, and endangered species to restrict grazing rights, control water usage, and enact other regulations.” In essence, Carter was describing a hostile, focused agenda that was neither accidental nor disorganized.
Many governments and influential NGOs regularly call for the end of meat-based diets, and take steps to ensure that meat is eaten less. Most notoriously, World Economic Forum chair Klaus Schwab has made reducing meat consumption an essential element of the WEF’s “Great Reset” plan. Along with the WEF, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the EU’s “Green Deal” call for less meat-based diets. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have proposed a meat tax as a way to reduce carbon emissions from cows. All of these measures focused on the meat industry as a significant driver of climate change.
Texas cattle rancher Bart Simmons, who has built a social media presence to counter what he calls “elite anti-meat messaging,” considers such arguments pernicious. “The anti-meat movement effectively tied methane from cattle as a cause for climate change early on in the debate, and it stuck,” Simmons told me. “The EPA attributes only 1.9% of America’s greenhouse gases to methane and nitrous oxide from beef cattle, less than a tenth of other industries like electricity or transportation.” If there is a war on beef, it’s misguided.
This is especially true when we scrutinize what would replace meat in the global diet. The famous expression “we will not eat the bugs” has become a canned response to global initiatives focused on protein derived from crickets or mealworms. But the meat replacement industry is even more technologically savvy: Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and other billionaires have begun heavily investing in laboratory meat products (which they ironically call “clean meat”) grown from stem cells, soy, gelatin, and genetically-engineered yeast. An NYU researcher has even proposed making modifications to human bodies to make us smaller and allergic to meat, specifically citing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a motivation. On the economic side, one of the WEF’s favored startups, Doconomy, has introduced a “carbon credit card” which will shut off if the user purchases too much meat. Such climate-conscious financial practices align well with the World Bank’s Food Systems 2030 plan, which shares the same views on global agriculture.
It’s not extreme to call this trend a “War on Meat” and to point out that it is being waged by leftist elites. The top left-aligned newspaper The New York Times has called meat-eating racist, the Soros- and Ford-funded organization Open Democracy has called it “far-right”, and President Joe Biden has called for reducing red meat consumption by 90 percent. Agriculture and diet have now become a partisan struggle.
How Do the Evil Ones Plan to Do Away With Regular Money and Implement the Digital Currency By Which to Trace and Control the Populations?
BS”D The CBDC is a DIABOLICAL plan. Likely you’ve heard concerning bits and pieces already about a new cashless digital currency in the works globally, but you may not realize how serious the governments are about it, and how dangerous it is. This short 15 minute video is really well done and explains the evil plot perfectly…Read more10 days ago · 17 likes · 8 comments · Brucha Weisberger
Here is More Information On the Demonic Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) From the October 16/22 Corbet Report (excerpt):
The big deal, of course, is that CBDCs are not like cash or bank deposits or the other forms of payment that we use in our everyday transactions. They are programmable.
Just like a piece of software running on your computer or an app on your stupidphone, CBDCs can be programmed to act in certain ways. Conditions can be set on their use. They can be created or deleted, frozen, devalued or inflated with the click of a button. And, like any piece of software, they can be updated—with or without your knowledge—to provide new functionality at any time.
So here is the next question we must tackle in this exploration: What can CBDCs be programmed to do?
HOW WILL THIS BE USED AGAINST US?
Let’s turn back to our Joe Blow example. He goes to the store as usual, picks up a pack of gum, takes it to the register, scans his device and waits for the beep. But this time the beep doesn’t come.
“What’s going on here? I have enough funds in my account to buy a pack of gum!”
“I’m sorry, sir, but it says here that you participated in the Freedom Protest last Sunday. The central bank has deemed you a domestic terrorist and frozen access to your wallet. You’ll have to report to the nearest Re-education Centre for a full indoctrination course before you can make purchases again.”
Just a few years ago this scenario might have seemed like far-fetched science fiction. But, given what we’ve experienced in recent months—from Canada’s crackdown on the Freedom Convoy supporters to the latest PayPal censorship scandal—who can deny that we are on the cusp of this scenario becoming a daily occurrence in the dawning digital dystopia?
This is the danger of programmable money.
I’m glad that more and more people have seen the now-infamous clip of Agustin Carstens- the rotund general manager of the Bank for International Settlements—explaining the appeal of CBDCs to the banking cabal. There, smack dab in the middle of an IMF livestream on cross-border payments, Carstens admits plain as day that CBDCs will enable the creation of a financial surveillance and control grid that dictators of the past could only dream of:
AGUSTIN CARSTENS, BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS, AND THE ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF DIGITAL CURRENCIES
“We don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a 1,000 peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”
As I’ve noted a number of times now, the entire CBDC agenda is laid bare by Carstens in those two chilling sentences. It is not just about the complete surveillance of all transactions that CBDCs will enable—knowing “who’s using a $100 bill today”—it’s the ability to “determine the use of that expression of central bank liability” and “the technology to enforce that.”
“Determine the use of that expression of central bank liability”? This is more financial gobbledygook designed to hide the true horror of a chilling proposal. What does that actually mean in plain English? It means that CBDCs could be programmed so that they are only spendable if the holder of those funds meets certain requirements.
Do you remember that parking ticket you forgot to pay last month? Well, your central bank-issued CBDC wallet does, and it will just subtract those funds (plus a late payment fee) from your account when you’re not looking. Get caught supporting the wrong fundraiser or the wrong political cause? Don’t worry, in a world of CBDC transactions you wouldn’t have been allowed to donate to that cause in the first place because your wallet wouldn’t let you!
Following this line of thought, programmable money could also be used to perfect a system of carbon credits and individualized ESG scores. In today’s world, it would be incredibly difficult for the government to implement a scheme where every store has to check your carbon allowance before allowing your next purchase. Sure, EBT cards can be programmed to disallow purchases from liquor stores, casinos or other naughty businesses, but stopping people from spending their own bank deposits (or cash) is much trickier.
In the CBDC world of the future, however, such restrictions could be programmed into the ledger itself. If your carbon credit or your ESG score is below a certain amount, no soup for you! (. . . Unless you’re going to throw that soup on a painting to protest climate change, of course. That’ll be allowed.)
These concerns are not merely theoretical, nor are they the ravings of wide-eyed conspiraloonies. A director of the Bank of England came out last year to highlight these very features of digital currency, declaring that there could be “some socially beneficial outcomes” to stopping people from buying what they want, such as “preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way.”
What’s more, we know that the idea of a social credit system being used to allow or disallow purchases is not just some Black Mirror-esque sci-fi fantasy but a lived reality in China. It requires absolutely no imagination whatsoever to understand how programmable money could be used to restrict our purchases based on our social credit ratings, carbon allowances, ESG scores, allegiance to political causes or absolutely any other arbitrary criteria.
And we haven’t even gotten to the economic ramifications of programmable money. The infinite malleability of CBDCs is a … dream to the technocratic tyrants who wish to manipulate the financial system to their benefit.
Consider this: CBDCs are not fungible. Each digital token in your CBDC wallet is individually identifiable, sequesterable and programmable. So let’s imagine the central banksters, in their infinite wisdom, decide that people aren’t spending enough. They could build demurrage into the network protocols; the longer a CBDC sits unspent in your wallet, the less it’s worth.
Again, this is no hypothetical concern or flight of fancy. Even the UK government committee that made headlines for “condemning” the plan to create a new UK digital currency as a “solution in search of a problem” listed the fact that “a digital pound could be set to be spent by a deadline or on particular products or services” as one of the potential advantages of a Bank of England-issued CBDC.
Or take the problem of bank runs. If and when digital currency becomes predominant, the threat of bank runs becomes non-existent. If CBDCs are designed—as they certainly could be—so that they are not interchangeable with bank deposits or cash or other forms of central bank liability, then there’s no withdrawing them from the bank and stuffing them under your mattress. Bank bail-ins? Negative interest rates? Hyperinflation? Whatever happens, you’re in for the ride.
Yes, even a moment’s thought reveals that as bad as things are right now—with governments freezing the bank accounts of protesters and payment processors threatening to fine users for spreading “disinformation” and banks cutting off business with those who commit wrongthink—it will be much, much worse in a world of programmable money.
by James Corbett corbettreport.com October 15, 2022 There are 3 types of people in this world. There are those who read that SWIFT has “solve[d] the significant challenge of interoperability in cross-border transactions by bridging between different distributed ledger technology (DLT) networks and existing payment systems” and…Read more3 days ago · 25 likes · The Corbett Report
All These Things May Be Very Inconvenient and Unpleasant But How Do We Know They Actually Want Many People to Die?
Simple. They are already encouraging death by assisted suicide, as you’ll see in the shocking article about Canada below. Assisted suicide (euthanasia) saves them money and reduces the population – their dream.
As “2nd Smartest Guy” wrote in his substack:
What the WEF is setting up now is the true reality of their 4th Industrial Revolution: You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be unhappy.
But it gets worse. Way worse.
Because lives stripped of all happiness and meaning are that much easier to control. And what kind of control is the WEF really after?
In the not so distant future one of the most critical features of the social credit score will be the algorithm as set by the technocratic elite overlords that will determine when the GMH slave will be magnanimously granted the “freedom” to be “happily” suicided by the State. French futurist, radical Marxist and One World Government coconspirator Jacques Attali summed up the WEF’s and UN’s sociopathic endgame perfectly:
“Euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies in all cases. In a socialist logic, to begin with, the problem is as follows: socialist logic is freedom and fundamental freedom is suicide; consequently, the right to direct or indirect suicide is an absolute value in this type of society. In a capitalist society, killing machines, prostheses that will make it possible to eliminate life when it is too unbearable or economically too costly, will come into being and will be common practice. I therefore believe that euthanasia, whether it is a value of freedom or a commodity, will be one of the rules of future society.”
See what’s currently happening in Canada:
Scheduled to Die: The Rise of Canada’s Assisted Suicide Program
By Rupa Subramanya (Excerpts, link to original article below):
On September 7, Margaret Marsilla called Joshua Tepper, the doctor who planned to kill her son.
Marsilla is 46, and she lives outside Toronto with her husband and daughter, a nursing student. She had known that her 23-year-old son, Kiano Vafaeian, was depressed—he was diabetic and had lost his vision in one eye, and he didn’t have a job or girlfriend or much of a future—and Marsilla asked her daughter to log onto Kiano’s account. (Kiano had given his sister access so she could help him with his email.) He never shared anything with his mother—what he was thinking, where he was going—and Marsilla was scared.
That was when Marsilla learned that Kiano had applied and, in late July, been approved for “medical assistance in dying,” aka MAiD, aka assisted suicide.
His death was scheduled for September 22.
In a September 7 email from Tepper, the doctor, to Kiano and Tekla Hendrickson, the executive director of MAiDHouse, the Toronto facility where Kiano’s death would take place, Tepper mapped out the schedule:
“Hii,” he emailed. (Apparently, Tepper did not use spell check.) “I am confirming the following timing: Please arrive at 8:30 am. I will ask for the nurse at 8:45 am and I will start the procedure at around 9:00 am. Procedure will be completed a few minutes after it starts.”
The procedure entailed administering two drugs. First, a coma-inducing agent. Then, a neuromuscular blocker that would stop Kiano’s breathing. He would be dead in five to ten minutes.
Apparently, Kiano wanted to bring a dog with him. In an email to him that same day, Hendrickson said: “Dogs are welcome in the space as long as there is someone there who will be responsible for them during the time at MAiDHouse.”
Marsilla was terrified. She had tried to do everything for her son, but it had been rough for him. She and his dad had gotten divorced when Kiano was still a kid. On his sixteenth birthday, she had given him a BMW. When he was 17, he had been in a bad car accident. He wasn’t up to college. He smoked a ton of weed. He’d lived with his dad, then with his mom, and now with her sister, Kiano’s aunt.
Wherever he went, whatever he did—he was unhappy. Going blind in his left eye, this past April, was the tipping point.
The day after she discovered the email, Marsilla called Tepper. She pretended to be a MAiD applicant. She called herself Joann and said she “wanted to go through the whole process in general, from A to Zed, before the holidays—if you know what I mean.” Tepper indicated he understood.
Tepper, sounding matter of fact, ran through the list of requirements: “You have to be over 18. You have to have an OHIP card.” (He was referring to her Ontario Health Insurance Plan.) “You have to have suffering that cannot be remediated or treated in some way that’s acceptable to you.”
Marsilla, who recorded the conversation and shared the five-and-a-half-minute recording with Common Sense, told Tepper that she was diabetic and blind—more or less, her son’s condition. Tepper said he’d “had patients a lot similar to you.”
Then, the doctor said, “If you wanted, I could do a formal assessment with you.” Marsilla asked if she should come in. Tepper replied: “We do them remotely, often by video of some type: WhatsApp, Zoom, FaceTime, something like that.”
A few minutes later, Marsilla hung up. She had just over two weeks to stop her son from dying.
In 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide was constitutional. In June 2016, Parliament passed Bill C-14, otherwise known as the Medical Assistance in Dying Act. MAiD was now the law of the land. Anyone who could show that their death was “reasonably foreseeable” was eligible. In this respect, Canada was hardly alone: The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand, among others, allow assisted suicide. So do ten states in the U.S.
In 2017, the first full year in which MAiD, which is administered by provincial governments, was in operation, 2,838 people opted for assisted suicide, according to a government report. By 2021, that figure had jumped to 10,064—accounting for more than 3 percent of all deaths in Canada that year.
There have been a total of 31,664 MAiD deaths and the large majority of those people were 65 to 80 when they died. In 2017, only 34 MAiD deaths were in the 18- to 45-year-old category. In 2018, that figure rose to at least 49. In 2019, it was 103; in 2020,118; and in 2021, 139.
Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves.
Indeed, in some Canadian provinces nearly 5 percent of deaths are MAiD deaths. In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7 percent of deaths in the province were due to MAiD; in British Columbia, the number was 4.8 percent. Progressive Vancouver Island is unofficially known as the “assisted-death capital of the world,” doctors told me.
Why the dramatic increase? Over the past few years, doctors have taken an increasingly liberal view when it comes to defining “reasonably foreseeable” death. Then, last year, the government amended the original legislation, stating that one could apply for MAiD even if one’s death were not reasonably foreseeable. This second track of applicants simply had to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.” This included applicants like Margaret Marsilla’s son, Kiano.
In 2023, those numbers are almost certain to rise.
Next March, the government is scheduled to expand the pool of eligible suicide-seekers to include the mentally ill and “mature minors.” According to Canada’s Department of Justice, parents are generally “entitled to make treatment decisions on their children’s behalf. The mature minor doctrine, however, allows children deemed sufficiently mature to make their own treatment decisions.” (The federal government does not define “mature,” nor does it specify who determines whether one is mature. On top of that, the doctrine varies from one province to another.)
Hugh Scher, an attorney advising Margaret Marsilla, told me: “While other countries have explored extending assisted suicide to minors, those governments have insisted on substantial safeguards, including parental notification and consent. Canada is poised to become the most permissive euthanasia regime in the world, including for minors and people with only psychiatric illness, having already removed the foreseeability of death or terminal illness as an essential condition to access euthanasia or assisted suicide.”
‘The New Social Safety Net’
Many of the people thinking about killing themselves in Canada are relieved that the government has made it easier to die.
“The nightmares have always been a problem,” Mitchell Tremblay, 40, told me. “Since I was six-years-old, when my cousin molested me.” I’d found Tremblay on Twitter. He had a small following, but he was active in #MAiD circles.
Tremblay was MAiD-curious. The MAiD-curious were lonely and scared, and they had coalesced into a growing, online community, mostly on Twitter and Facebook, and through the spread of death cafés. There were more than 1,300 death cafés in Canada and 14,000 worldwide. In the beginning, in 2012 or 2013, people mostly met in other people’s homes to talk about the emotional and philosophical complexities of death. They ate cake and had coffee or tea. Since then, the number of virtual cafés had grown considerably. (There was also an expanding constellation of end-of-life doctors and “death doulas.” Karry Sawatsky, a death doula at MAiDHouse, where Kiano Vafaeian was scheduled to die, is described on the MAiDHouse website as believing that “end-of-life planning leads to a meaningful and transformational experience.”)
Tremblay was from outside Toronto, and he had been homeless, off and on, for more than two decades. He had spent years in and out of psychiatric facilities. He had prostituted himself, and he’d done tons of drugs, and he’d shuttled between dingy apartments and halfway houses. For now, he had a place to live, but he expected to be evicted by spring. He planned to apply for MAiD as soon as it opened up to the mentally ill, in March 2023.
“MAiD is going to give me dignity,” Tremblay said. “I need to go now, because I know it’s gonna get worse.”
Les Landry, 65, said he was in the middle of filling out his MAiD application. He was from Medicine Hat, Alberta, in the middle of nowhere, several hours southeast of Calgary and a little north of the Montana line. He received $1,238 every month from the government, but he was always short on cash. He said he’d been abused by his mother when he was four—she put his hand through the wringer of an old-fashioned washing machine. He’d suffered from PTSD, and he’d had three strokes, and he suffered from epilepsy, he said.Read On….
Few Options for Living With Dignity
On September 7, Margaret Marsilla called Joshua Tepper, the doctor who planned to kill her son. Marsilla is 46, and she lives outside Toronto with her husband and daughter, a nursing student. She had known that her 23-year-old son, Kiano Vafaeian, was depressed—he was diabetic…Read more8 days ago · 578 likes · 803 comments · Rupa Subramanya
The Censorship of Ideas and Free Speech is Just Getting Started
PayPal just attempted to sneak in a clause by which they would fine (steal) money from their users for every piece of “misinformation.” See excerpt from October 10/22 piece by Jeffrey A. Tucker ~ The recent Paypal Fiasco Was No Accident:
This comes weeks after PayPal blocked several important accounts in the UK, including Toby Young’s personal account, the Free Speech Union, and the DailySceptic. These are hugely important venues for the English-speaking world in countering the COVID propaganda narrative. It was no accident that they were targeted.
After global protests and news coverage from alternative sources, PayPal relented and restored their accounts without explanation.
In a similar vein, protests all over the world poured in about PayPal’s new policy. Twitter filled up with announcements from people who were canceling their accounts.
By the following day, PayPal reversed itself, claiming that the banning of “misinformation” was just a mistake.
And this about Facebook suppression of free speech:
BREAKING: Facebook is an enemy of democracy. By deliberately suppressing free speech and the truth on the mRNA product Mark Zuckerberg is an enemy of democracy and everyone should refer to him that way.
Here is a banner hung anonymously on an overpass in China. Remember, China is already far ahead with the surveillance and control program that the WEF wants to implement for the rest of the world. How is it working out for them?
“No Covid test, we want to eat. No restrictions, we want freedom. No lies, we want dignity. No Cultural Revolution, we want reform. No leaders, we want votes. By not being slaves, we can be citizens.”
“Go on strike at school and work, remove dictator and national traitor Xi Jinping.”
It is significant that the NYT did not translate the banner when they (mis)reported on this story.
Check out the lede to this Times piece about the CCP’s swift crackdown on the “chatter” over those two banners posted on the Sitong Bridge. According to the Times reporters, the “column of smoke” above the overpass “drew attention to [the] protester” who’d hung the banners that caused all the online fuss, which China’s “Internet censors” then rushed to …Read more3 days ago · 247 likes · 51 comments · Mark Crispin Miller
More Info: Spying on your thoughts, arrested for “Wrong Think” – Mass Monitoring, A Digital Dictatorship on the Horizon? This is From Biden’s White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ARPA-H-Fact-Sheet.pdf